Ruling finds occupier’s breach of duty of care is accident’s factual and legal cause
In an accident involving a crop sprayer falling into a river, the Ontario Court of Appeal determined that the land’s owner and occupier failed to give a sufficient warning of the hidden danger arising from a bridge’s unsupported overhangs.
On land owned by the respondent in T.C.O. Agromart Ltd. v. Sutton Farms (Nacona) Ltd., 2026 ONCA 371, a driver employed by the appellant operated the sprayer across a private bridge, which partly collapsed.
The sprayer sustained significant damage after falling into the river. The driver, initially trapped underwater in the sprayer, managed to escape without serious injuries.
In an action commenced by the appellant’s insurer against respondent Sutton Farms (Nacona) Ltd., appellant T.C.O. Agromart Ltd. asserted negligence and breach of the statutory duty under s. 3(1) of Ontario’s Occupiers’ Liability Act, 1990 (OLA).
On Mar. 31, 2025, Justice Karen Jensen of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action. The trial judge found that the driver’s negligence – not the bridge’s design, maintenance, or upkeep – caused the accident and that the landowner owed no duty to warn users to stay in the bridge’s centre.
The appellant asked the appeal court to set aside the judgment and allow its action. The appellant sought damages as assessed by the judge and trial and appeal costs.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment, and awarded the appellant damages of $423,016.15, as assessed by the trial judge.
The appeal court found the respondent liable for breach of s. 3 of the OLA upon considering:
First, the appeal court addressed the judge’s alleged failure to make standard of care findings and her alleged error in defining the duty to warn.
The appeal court saw a legal error in the judge’s conflation of causation with the standard of care and failure to perform a standard of care analysis. The appeal court added that the judge made a reviewable error in:
In the circumstances, the appeal court ruled that the duty to warn necessarily included disclosing the danger hidden beneath. Specifically, the danger arose from the complete lack of support for the outer three feet on both sides of the bridge – six feet in total – from the steel beams below.
Next, the appeal court tackled the judge’s alleged error in determining that the breach of the duty to warn did not factually or legally cause the accident. The appeal court considered the failure to warn the factual and legal cause, given the accident’s reasonable foreseeability.
Regarding factual causation, the appeal court saw a reviewable error in the judge’s consideration of the evidence in light of the erroneously defined scope of the duty to warn.
The appeal court held that the judge incorrectly concluded that the lack of warnings was not the accident’s factual cause on the basis that a sign warning the driver of the risk of straying from the bridge’s centre would not have prevented the accident, as he already knew he had to remain in the centre.
The appeal court deemed this conclusion incorrect when properly considering the duty to warn as including a warning of the unsupported outer three feet on either side of the bridge, which would have affected the driver’s manner of operating the sprayer over the bridge.
Regarding legal causation, the appeal court saw a palpable and overriding error in the judge’s conclusion that the lack of support under the overhang did not legally cause the accident.
Based on the trial evidence, the appeal court found the accident both reasonably foreseeable and actually foreseen. The appeal court pointed out that:
Lastly, the appeal court awarded the appellant appeal costs, fixed at the agreed-upon all-inclusive amount of $25,000, and the trial costs, with the parties encouraged to agree on quantum.
"This appeal was about accountability for a hidden danger. The Court of Appeal has reminded the bench and bar that an occupier's duty to ensure premises are reasonably safe, and to warn of foreseeable dangers, is independent of an invitee's actual knowledge. While TCO Agromart's driver knew he should drive in the centre of the Sutton Farms bridge, he had never been told that veering as little as 5½ inches off centre on a 16 foot wide bridge deck would place the wheels of his sprayer on completely unsupported decking. The Court confirmed that Mr. Sutton had a duty to warn of that hidden danger," say Alan L. Rachlin and Tino Kasi, the appellant's co-counsel.
"The decision provides valuable guidance on occupiers' liability, foreseeability, and the duty to warn, particularly in rural and agricultural settings," Rachlin and Kasi tell Law Times. "We are very pleased that the Court recognized these principles and restored full damages to our client arising from the bridge collapse."
Kasi is principal of Kasi Law Firm, while Rachlin is managing partner of Rachlin & Wolfson LLP.
